I gotta disagree.

Posted by Rundquist from adsl-63-201-187-189.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net (63.201.187.189) on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 at 5:15pm :

In Reply to: Re: Excuse me, but... posted by Shawnkara from spider-tf062.proxy.aol.com (152.163.197.202) on Monday, December 17, 2001 at 9:55pm :

Lucas' involvement goes beyond what you've outlined. His hand is in all creative aspects of the movie making process. You can't undermine his role as creator of the series either. His role in Indiana Indiana is quite similar to that of his role in Star Wars. The one difference between SW and Indy is that the SW films are technically so much more daunting to make. Lucas in essence drew up the plans for both series (with help of course). Overseeing an Indy production is probably in many ways much more simple than overseeing the monstrosity of a SW film. I still believe that the movies were drawn from his blueprints and that Spielberg built the things. This is of course just a difference of opinions here. Cheers

xxxx
: Not following a fad, I've just never felt that Lucas contributed much to Raiders. Maybe I was wrong. Star wars is his baby, stem to stern and his talent is obvious. Usually you only hear how George "Wanted an archaeologist type and he had a title all worked out". From there you only see his name burried in the slot of 'producer' beneath a list of talented writers, actors, art department and effects people. I didn't know he was so active in his role of producer. Usually a producer just shakes the hands, kisses the babies and plays politician as he sits back and makes sure all the talent is in place. Kinda like those telemarketers that call to confirm sales;) At any rate, aside from Star Wars, I still feel his role is pretty minimal creatively. He generates an idea and watches others develope and realize it, approving or disapproving this or that as the creative process progresses. I'm sure Ebert and the boys would disagree, but criticism is not art.

Follow Ups: Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : Lucas' involvement goes beyond what you've outlined. His hand is in all creative aspects of the movie making process. You can't undermine his role as creator of the series either. His role in Indiana Indiana is quite similar to that of his role in Star Wars. The one difference between SW and Indy is that the SW films are technically so much more daunting to make. Lucas in essence drew up the plans for both series (with help of course). Overseeing an Indy production is probably in many ways much more simple than overseeing the monstrosity of a SW film. I still believe that the movies were drawn from his blueprints and that Spielberg built the things. This is of course just a difference of opinions here. Cheers : xxxx : : Not following a fad, I've just never felt that Lucas contributed much to Raiders. Maybe I was wrong. Star wars is his baby, stem to stern and his talent is obvious. Usually you only hear how George "Wanted an archaeologist type and he had a title all worked out". From there you only see his name burried in the slot of 'producer' beneath a list of talented writers, actors, art department and effects people. I didn't know he was so active in his role of producer. Usually a producer just shakes the hands, kisses the babies and plays politician as he sits back and makes sure all the talent is in place. Kinda like those telemarketers that call to confirm sales;) At any rate, aside from Star Wars, I still feel his role is pretty minimal creatively. He generates an idea and watches others develope and realize it, approving or disapproving this or that as the creative process progresses. I'm sure Ebert and the boys would disagree, but criticism is not art. Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com